Talk:RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted
Contents |
[edit] Hitchhiker's Guide
I've loved RationalWIki from afar from ages, this is my first official edit. Goodness. Anyway, I feel like this page should have a great big piece of reassurance right at the top for the nervous or ashamed, along the line's of the Hitchhiker's Guide, that simply says "DON'T PANIC". It would make this guide more inviting for those who are genuinely deconverting, much like the constant reminders that it's ok not to believe. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- "DON'T PANIC" is also the tagline used by the Christian Union when they're trying to pray/prey on new students. I realise that connotation won't be universal, because not everyone has encountered UCCF/CU stuff before, but it does make me slightly uncomfortable to use that wording exactly.
sshole 12:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- "DON'T PANIC" is also the tagline used by the Christian Union when they're trying to pray/prey on new students. I realise that connotation won't be universal, because not everyone has encountered UCCF/CU stuff before, but it does make me slightly uncomfortable to use that wording exactly.
- Oh, I dunno, that makes it sound like it's well worth reclaiming! - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Sloppy writing
About the section: 'Is atheism a religion?' I've got no major complaints, really. I just think it's a bit sloppily written, and since the article as a whole appears to be very refined, I thought I'd post in talk before editing the article itself.
Specifically the second mention of 'orange peels' I think is very sloppily written. To quote the text: "If you were to consider 'religious' as being anyone who was passionate about an idea [...] Combine this with the existence of implicit atheism and now the aforementioned orange peels have their own atheistic religion!"
I fail to see how orange peels or implicit atheists can be passionate about an idea. I mean ok, you could potentially, far-fetchedly, say that an implicit atheist can be "implicitly passionate" about the idea, but certainly orange peels don't even qualify for that.
Additionally, that doesn't mean I have no issues with the first mention of orange peels, which makes its jump of "anyone unaware of religion is atheistic, but only implicitly. According to this definition, of course, even orange peels are atheists".
That jump includes a personification of an inanimate object by setting 'orange peels' to be under the heading 'anyone' instead of 'anything'.
I suggest a bit of a re-write. (sorry if I'm being painfully pedantic) Nullahnung (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- An easy fix. I'll take a look.
sshole 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, looks good now! (I think) Nullahnung (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Why is project blue bean evidence for god?
You said that. That implies you claim Lucifer is God. — Unsigned, by: 70.210.153.83 / talk 09:43, 26 January 2015
- Hey BoN, if this isn't just a nonsensical drive-by comment, why not take it up on Talk:Project Blue Beam (note spelling) instead? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Name
The name is "RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". Why do we need all of these words? We know it's on RationalWiki. "Atheism" and "Newly Deconverted" are redundant, and the FAQ isn't just relevant to those who've just deconverted. Why not just shorten it to "Atheism FAQ"? (I know it's a cover page and widely linked to, but is this at least theoretically valid?) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- "newly deconverted" isn't really redundant, that's its target audience and a group it's been useful to - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then "FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Previous discussion on this here. I would say atheism is more important in the title than "newly deconverted". Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think it needs all of "Atheism", "FAQ" and "Newly Deconverted" - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs "Newly Deconverted", because I don't believe that the article is tailored to people who've just left their religion. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The way the headings are written make it look more like a guide for those who are on the edge of losing faith than actually already deconverted, , being a lot are "But X said Y about irreligion!" and us going "X was wrong about y, Irreligion is perfectly fine", but those aren't unhelpful for the newly deconverted either. --Miekal 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I believe you are factually incorrect, because that's precisely who it was targeted to and who it's proven useful for - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Miekal. The article deals with many topics that are relevant for pre-deconversion. Furthermore, the article deals with many topics that are useful even a while after deconversion. Changing the title won't change who reads the article, but it will make it more accurate to the contents of the page. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a terrible idea. It's specifically help for that target audience - the newly-atheist who are wondering what the hell to think about the world now - and if it helps others that's nice, but it is a thing with a purpose that it has been actually useful to people for. Changing the name does not actually help anything whatsoever - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was under the impression this was to help both people on the fence about their religion make an informed decision as well as those that have already made the decision to leave; don't worry, non-religion isn't as scary as you have been taught to believe! CorruptUser (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a terrible idea. It's specifically help for that target audience - the newly-atheist who are wondering what the hell to think about the world now - and if it helps others that's nice, but it is a thing with a purpose that it has been actually useful to people for. Changing the name does not actually help anything whatsoever - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Miekal. The article deals with many topics that are relevant for pre-deconversion. Furthermore, the article deals with many topics that are useful even a while after deconversion. Changing the title won't change who reads the article, but it will make it more accurate to the contents of the page. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs "Newly Deconverted", because I don't believe that the article is tailored to people who've just left their religion. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think it needs all of "Atheism", "FAQ" and "Newly Deconverted" - David Gerard (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Previous discussion on this here. I would say atheism is more important in the title than "newly deconverted". Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Then "FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- *cough* ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 11:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hasn't changed fronm being a terrible idea - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)